Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 01 October 2022 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3AA9C14CE29 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CObLyZU53eGe for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB49AC14F74E for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1oeSV3-000FFc-Fm; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:45:09 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:45:03 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
cc: last-call@ietf.org
Message-ID: <022936202E19E9C9DE922410@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxxKnTtyau3qMUqALUfDo7qNVU78JTy+6g0xkFyL6NdDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CFE25E25-D131-468E-9923-80350D6216F3@ietf.org> <CAHBU6iv=MtNcw6PLCpV+jAD5sJRWMMo5hOCu6ruR-09AuVsrcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxxKnTtyau3qMUqALUfDo7qNVU78JTy+6g0xkFyL6NdDw@mail.gmail.c om>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Li7X4Ib4G2tROxMC3wJeZ-ClMT8>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 02:45:16 -0000

Rob, Tim,

An observation although I think we are sliding off-topic.

Recent decision patterns that have the effect of spinning almost
anything that starts to get traction on the ietf@ list off into
a specialized list tends to change the S/N ratio and the
proportion of potentially disruptive or abusive traffic for the
worse, just because there is less useful and constructive
traffic left.  That has nothing to do with this particular
action which, as I have written the IESG privately, I think is
justified (and I agree about the  "overdue" part too).   I also
think that some of the ways of thinking about the issues and
behavior might be more nuanced and that the action would be
justified without what some impartial observers might consider
reciprocal name-calling (a problem Dan himself illustrated in a
recent note).  However, if we are thinking about making changes
either to the IETF list charter or to BCP 83 itself, I'd
encourage people to think through the implications and
consequences of other decisions that might interact, even in
non-obvious ways, and be careful about what we wish for.

     john


--On Friday, September 30, 2022 16:25 -0700 Rob Sayre
<sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I support this action. I think it would be best to rewrite the
> charter of ietf@ that says "the most general list", since that
> remit is clearly being used to waste time, which is the only
> currency we all have in common.
> 
> thanks,
> Rob
> 
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 3:10 PM Tim Bray
> <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> 
>> I fully support this action.  I am one of those who left
>> ietf@ for obvious reasons and would hope that this sort of
>> action might make it a more useful space in future.
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 9:16 AM IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Following community feedback after various incidents, as
>>> documented below, the
>>> IESG has initiated a posting rights (PR) action that would
>>> restrict the posting
>>> rights of Dan Harkins, as per the procedures found in BCP 83
>>> (RFC 3683). Specifically, his posting privileges to these
>>> lists would be suspended:
>>> 
>>> * admin-discuss
>>> * gendispatch
>>> * ietf
>>> * terminology
>>> 
>>> In the IESG's opinion, this individual has a history of
>>> sending emails that are
>>> inconsistent with the IETF Guidelines for Conduct (RFC 7154)
>>> and thereby "disrupt the consensus-driven process" (RFC
>>> 3683). Among these are contributions
>>> that:
>>> 
>>> * Express racism in the form of denying, belittling, and
>>> ridiculing anti-racist
>>>   sentiment and efforts
>>> 
>>> * Are rude and abusive, and often amount to insulting
>>> ridicule
>>> 
>>> (Links to examples of such emails sent to the lists above
>>> during the last two
>>> years are provided at the end of this email.)
>>> 
>>> Multiple attempts have been made to enter into a private
>>> discussion with this
>>> individual, both by IESG and community members, to
>>> communicate disquiet with his
>>> conduct on the lists. These attempts to restore respectful
>>> and courteous conduct
>>> on the lists have been rebuffed with communication that can
>>> be considered both
>>> antagonistic and hostile, and the pattern of behavior
>>> observed has continued.
>>> 
>>> The IESG also notes that the following actions have already
>>> been taken in response to the individual's actions:
>>> 
>>> * Two I-Ds were removed from the public archive due to their
>>> offensive nature:
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-les-white-inters
>>> ectional-dots
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-les-white-tls-pr
>>> eferred-pronouns (following these links displays the
>>>   tombstone notice explaining their removal)
>>> 
>>> * His posting rights were restricted on the admin-discuss
>>> mailing list:
>>> 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/admin-discuss/ZANH2VPN
>>> -U8VMvvOWLb5l03FdCs/
>>> 
>>> * A final public warning was issued on the gendispatch
>>> mailing list:
>>> 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/68a4amMa1a
>>> iaRUPzPGgXdiY9gHg/
>>> 
>>> None of the attempts to discuss his participation style or
>>> warn the individual
>>> have led to any improvements. The IESG therefore believes
>>> that a PR action is
>>> the correct response to his continued problematic behavior
>>> across a number of
>>> different lists.
>>> 
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>>> solicits final
>>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
>>> the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 27 October 2022.
>>> Exceptionally, comments may
>>> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. If sending private
>>> feedback to the IESG,
>>> please indicate if you would be open to having your comments
>>> anonymized and
>>> shared in a summary.
>>> 
>>> Please note: Comments should be limited to the criteria
>>> described in BCP 83,
>>> notably on whether the individual in question has engaged in
>>> postings that are
>>> "unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general
>>> subject" in a manner disruptive enough to warrant this
>>> action.
>>> 
>>> Lars Eggert
>>> IETF Chair, on behalf of the IESG
>>> –-
>>> 
>>> Examples of problematic emails during the last two years
>>> include:
>>> 
>>> *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/zdq3F0PV40
>>> Cyw5ooj0orOWaYyUw/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/i-d7HlWgrk
>>> mrVlC7JZQSXDwIJCQ/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/YhPI9zZ_3x
>>> fidt5V-ORRnET36yY/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/B33zk8VfOY
>>> t4b4Cj-kIHXG3AXdg/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/d3iDS4WNkC
>>> JA3aMFnX2HjP4tsps/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/-On8AHrdnn
>>> CMlJOOyb1M1nlYMpk/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/n6UMvDuYLK
>>> mmvpP1ajICFvf634M/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/QCdjDbokml
>>> ARcwVqQ1TV3Rlz7eQ/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/X6OF0MBKAz
>>> yLhYaAfAxS6srXRNw/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/idJhG1MsLm
>>> KHyRlaAafcW2JF6Z8/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/LoGSVatZ4EsYRq4K
>>> 52rmvRZTndk/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pl2lVqhtF4Z-0YuTj
>>> hCOmdyi1qE/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DFgnF_j8py_eMBGI1
>>> IUFdMahTKw/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/T3oCpY3BbT
>>> NLXWAWsCnFvahRLUQ/ *
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/admin-discuss/xLuz4WTC
>>> m5ibIiMVN5ID8OWsCI0/
>>> 
>>> --
>>> last-call mailing list
>>> last-call@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>>> 
>> --
>> last-call mailing list
>> last-call@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>>